Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mesothere wrote:Why is there argument over what the word "start" means?
Here's the definition...


Verb:
Come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

Noun:
The point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning of something.


Ergo the "Start of the Movement Phase" is a 'particular point'. Anything after this is during the movement phase, not the "start".

You've shown where start begins (a particular point in time or space) but neither definition provided states the start is solely instantaneous. Neither definition defines duration. We're not debating the origin of the start of the Movement phase (as noun, BTW) but the nebulous duration of the abstract concept.

The lot of you can spend hours arguing over what it means in terms of RULES AS WRITTEN!!!, but we all know it's a reasonable well-defined concept...

We do? We're left to debate it since it's neither defined by the rules nor will defined by other means. What can be expressed is there are several actions that can take place at the start of the Movement phase separate and independent from each other yet the results of one action can affect the events of an other action. Thus, at a minimum, we know the start of the Movement phase isn't instantaneous. The duration, on the other hand, isn't so well defined but generally understood to be that time prior to moving units.

Additionally, the following argument:

"Or the start of a NASCAR race, or the start of a marathon, or the start of the boat race around the world. Are you suggesting the mere moment of the gun going off signifies the racers are now in the middle of the race? "

Is an argument with no value, because the middle is "At an equal distance from the extremities of something; central."

Another definition plucked out of the ether used to defend your argument without consideration of definitions: for example: I have a stick consisting of four segments, A B C D, aligned in a row such A-B-C-D. The middle two segments are B and C. I can also state, if the start of the race is the gun going off and the end of the race is the moment of crossing the finish line, the period of time in between is the middle.

The start of the race is the initial period of the race where the racers begin running. Once the racers are running it becomes past tense ie the race has started so if you have a number of things that happen during the beginning of the movement it is before any movement and since it it only referring to one period in time, it all happens at the same time.

cluggy89 wrote:The start of the race is the initial period of the race where the racers begin running. Once the racers are running it becomes past tense ie the race has started so if you have a number of things that happen during the beginning of the movement it is before any movement and since it it only referring to one period in time, it all happens at the same time.

You haven't defined the period of time for the start of the race. Yes, the race has started but that doesn't indicated the start of the race is completed.

For example, if I'm running a marathon race, I start the race with eight minute miles for the first eight miles. My pace slow to nine minute miles s I run the middle eight miles and I finish the race with a ten minute mile pace. Yes, I've started the race but the start of the race, for me, is defined as the first eight miles. Another example, earlier in the season USA Today reported the Oklahoma State Cowboys started the football game flat against Kansas but came to play in the second half. In that example, the start of the football game was the first half.

The thing is, yes, the start of the Movement phase is referring to one period in time, it's the duration that isn't defined. Started is the past tense of start but not the past tense of the start of the Movement phase. The start of the Movement phase is a noun, as you pointed out, a period of time, not an action that has a past tense.

Just forget about the definition of TSOTMP. We know from other actions, psyker powers etc that some actions within TSOTMP are determined by the prior outcome of other actions. That is enough to show that the start of a phase is a period in time that lasts exactly as long as it needs to for all actions to occur.
For instance, the rules in the Imperial Guard book for determining orders have a very specific way of determining Special Orders, that is sequenced and depends on the results of prior orders issued in the same 'Start of the Shooting Phase'.

I see what your saying but to me, the start or the movement phase is the period from when your opponents turn has been completed (and after all start of your turn events have passed) till the first model that moves at all in your army. I don't know if its because i played alot of MTG but that is how i see the turn sequences when you include in start/end of phases
i know its not the same game but in my head it just seems logical

"Edited for glaring misspellings and use of correct abilities."

Im with TGA on this one regarding scarab placement. The only argument that should matter to this is the wording of Reanimation Protocols. RP specifically states the necrons that come back with RP must be placed in cohesion with the pre existing unit, not counting any models being placed by RP. Scarab placement from Tomb Spiders however has neither condition, therefore you dont have to place them in coherency or with the targeted unit.

as previously mentioned before, a unit is a collection of models with no fixed distance. the rules on units do not say a unit can only occupy a 5 inch square for example. the only conditions to a unit is they can not be voluntarily moved out of unit coherency, which is covered in the cohesion rules. A unit can exist out of cohesion from the placing or removing of models to a unit. Only condition Cohesion cares for is that if a unit is not in cohesion, it must move so that the unit is in coherency if at all possible, meaning that even if all models in a unit move directly towards the center point of all individual models and is still not in coherency, then its not in coherency and must move closer together during your next movement phase. Being out of coherency does not prevent you from being a unit.

Therefore as a result of the above, even if you place the scarabs on the other end of the table, they are still part of the unit they are created for, however doing so would serve no purpose. however as the rules are written you are allowed to do so. Is this how the rules were intended? im going to assume that is not how it is intended. The wording means a heck of alot in 40k, the wording is exactly why Writhing Worldscape will not work with Temporal Snares but will with the Quake rule.

Should this tactic be used in a friendly game? no, its a tactic for competitive play. if your playing a friendly game, then don't do it, easy as that. In tournaments you should be aware of all tactics such as this to know how to deal with it. If you cannot stand the competitive nature of tournament play (after all prizes are on the line) then don't play in them, or just forfeit against the army using the tactic, or just deal with it. After all if your group is just a friendly gaming environment, its very easy to just refuse to game with said player and play with another one who will play a simple friendly game.

Is the tactic cheesy? no. why? because its allowed by the rules as written. Is this tactic going to be valid for long? probably not, everyone is expecting to to be clarified to most likely end up being worded exactly like RP is.

"Add to" has a very well defined contextual meaning, which disagrees with the "place it anywhere" concept

TheGreatAvatar wrote:If the Spyders create the scarabs instantly and simultaneously, how does that prevent a conga line? Once all the models appear (simultaneously) in the conga line, with at least ONE model in coherency of the unit, all will be in coherency instantly. Otherwise, each model is created and place in coherency those permitting a conga line.

Even with that ruling, you could get about a 10" jump. Each unit of spyders creates 3 bases and places them 2" (in coherency with the original unit) . The next does the same, and finally the last one does it. Figuring 1.5" bases with 2" coherency, we are talking a 9" jump. Now move 6" fleet an average of 3.5" and charge 12" and scarabs can go 30" from your start line on the first turn. That doesn't leave them a lot of space to deploy anything...

Look, i agree that the scarabs should work by being placed in coherency with the unit is it being "added" to, however it doesnt say that, but i will play it this way. However, because it doesnt say they ignore other created models for the purpose of placement (like RP does) then the rules allow a Daisy Chain effect going forward.

you cannot enforce a *no congo line becuase the unit is out of coherency* if they are placing at least 1 model in coherency with the original unit and the rest in coherency to that one, and so on and so forth, fitting the requirements of the rules as written. If they did not want it to go forward like that they would have written it like RP

Also, measuring 2 inches anywhere you like when placing scarabs is premeasuring, and cheating. Coherency is a movement rule, measuring 2 inches away from your existing scarab unit to place a new base as far forward as possible is not a movement rule.

No measuring when placing scarabs!

Been over that, and shown you that you were wrong.

If you are required to place something in coherency, then you are required to measure. So if, as I contend, "Add to" means "in coherency" (which it does, given context) then given you are required to add in coherency, you MUST measure.

But Nos, you even just said that its 'iffy' that 'Add to' means 'place in coherency.' So how am I demonstrated wrong? You are supporting measuring coherency between an existing model and a model that does not yet exist. That is not allowed!

Also keep in mind I am talking about measuring 2 inches BEFORE the new scarab base is on the table. AKA, take a 2 inch marker, mark out 2 inches around each base in the entire unit of existing scarabs, each and every one, and after premeasuring each and every location on the board you can, THEN place the new model.

I am demonstrating that your cry "pre measuring is illegal!" is wrong. The rulebook explicitly states you must measure when required to do so, and if you are required to be in coherency you must measure for coherency.

Reread RP, and note you must do exactly that. Reread chaos less daemon summoning and note the requirement to be within 6" for a unit that isnt even there yet. Reread Mordraks Gknight summoning and note the coherency requirement. Your postulate makes this impossible to fulfill - good job your postulate is fundamentally wrong.

Measuring is EASY, and yes you can measure 2" from any model if you so wish. Same as whne choosing to move you cna measure 6 / 12 / 24" in any direction you wish.

RP, daemon summoning, teleport homers, ect, all tell you that you CAN measure.

The way you are playing 'add to' you are assuming you can measure.

Permissive rule set and all, the examples you give all give permission to put new models within x inches.

Spyders, on the otherhand, have radically different rules. You are trying to use coherency rules, movement rules, which say models that are moving must stay within 2 inches, gives your spyders permission to measure 2 inches from an existing scarab unit.

Edit: Mordrak reads 'Place a new ghost knight within coherency of Mordraks unit.' Such wording does not exist for scarabs. I wish it did.

Devian - did you actually bother to check the rules before posting? Page 61, lesser daemon summoning, says you are wrong.

There is a requirement to arrive within 6". ABSOLUTELY nothing states you CAN measure, however you MUST measure because otherwise you risk breaking a rule.

MOrdrak states place in coherency - so you must measure

Your postulate is entirely, 100% incorrect. There is NO requirement to say "you can measure this" - simply being unable to fulfill the rule (or risk not fulfilling it, rather) is enough to REQUIRE you to measure.

So, if "add to" means "in coherency with", and context says it is this meaning, then you MUST measure.

DevianID wrote:RP, daemon summoning, teleport homers, ect, all tell you that you CAN measure.

The way you are playing 'add to' you are assuming you can measure.

Permissive rule set and all, the examples you give all give permission to put new models within x inches.

Spyders, on the otherhand, have radically different rules. You are trying to use coherency rules, movement rules, which say models that are moving must stay within 2 inches, gives your spyders permission to measure 2 inches from an existing scarab unit.

Edit: Mordrak reads 'Place a new ghost knight within coherency of Mordraks unit.' Such wording does not exist for scarabs. I wish it did.

Question, so how would you know if they are in coherency when placed?

curtis wrote:Question, so how would you know if they are in coherency when placed?

Until the Movement phase is over, you do not. Which is one of the reasons I disagree. ^^

...except you do, bvecause you MUST measure to ensure they are in coherency. Given ghost knights can appear in any phase you MUST ensure they are in coherency, so you MUST measure.

It's too bad that GW developers don't play test new rules, no wait, they do. Tards!

When GW writes NEW rules, they really don't think about 'how' the rules can be exploited.
For example, I knew a guy (Shawn Chavez) who played against Andy Chambers once, back in 3rd edition.
Andy charged Kharn into a unit of marines with an Apothecary, the Apothecary used his narthecium to "CURE" Kharns Frenzy.
It half his attacks, and everyone but Andy laughed. Afterward, Shawn was given the title of "Cheeses Christ"

The point of this story is, GW doesn't think of ways to power play. Have you ever read of a Battle report were one army was over the top?
If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Just my two cents.

Nos, ghost knights have different placement rules than scarabs. If they wanted scarabs to be placed in coherency, then they need to say placed in coherency. Your argument about ghost knights only undermines your position on scarabs.

So, people who disagree with nos -

What does "add to" in this context mean? Would you mind defining that?

How many bases were in the unit before? 'Add' 1 more 'to' that.

Nos, you are taking rules from a completly different codex and fitting them around necrons. add to simply means another model joins the group, the whole prospect that it also means they have to be in coherency is absurd. Nowhere does it state that this is the case.

Sorry, I just don't see how "add to" could possibly not also mean "with" which is used to mean "in coherency" or "joined to" (eg. the IC rules)

Devian - no, they do not. In coherency with == add to. You do the exact same thing.

Do you see the point that your argument that you cannot premeasure is entirely false?

just because "add to" should mean in coherency with doesnt mean it does. if it did it would read " add to and maintain unit coherency" there are seperate thing with completly seperate meanings.

cluggy89 wrote:just because "add to" should mean in coherency with doesnt mean it does. if it did it would read " add to and maintain unit coherency" there are seperate thing with completly seperate meanings.

No, if "add to" means within coherency you don't need to state "and maintain unit coherency" because it already means that. If "add to" does not include coherency, and the writers intended coherency to be a requirement, then they would have to state such.

Add to == with == joined to == in coherency.

if you can state Anywhere that "add to" means in coherency i will apoligize and concede. there is more than enough evidence in the rules to prove that this is legal. you cannot provide me evidence for your case because there is none, and the lack of evidence on your behalve just fortify mine even more. Untill this is FAQ'd this will continue to be a legal strategy.

cluggy89 wrote:if you can state Anywhere that "add to" means in coherency i will apoligize and concede. there is more than enough evidence in the rules to prove that this is legal. you cannot provide me evidence for your case because there is none, and the lack of evidence on your behalve just fortify mine even more. Untill this is FAQ'd this will continue to be a legal strategy.

There are no rules to define add. Therefore you cannot use the ability at all. Have fun with that.

The only rules we have for a model to join a unit is the IC rules. The only time an IC is said to be a part of a unit is when? When it is within 2" of said unit.